The Fate Of Small Settlements


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Let's be brusque for a bit. That means "blunt". I want to use it in everyday conversation—it's a nice word.

At EE, there will be a lot of settlements with fewer than fifteen members. There will also be a fair few settlements with over twice those numbers. Even accounting for the failed settlementers funneling into the preexisting towns, there will still be quite a few small or poorly-manned territories.

And then, at some point, there won't be. Maybe after OE. Maybe even before that, when UNC or another morally dubious company decides to start claimjumping. But at some point, quite a few settlements are going to go down.

This is because such small settlements can be crushed by most attackers. They are easy pickings for just about anybody. Want a settlement? Time to weed out a few of the weaklings. Eventually, most of the organizations on the Leaderboard will be demolished.

This is my belief.

Any thoughts? Differing opinions? Ideas on how to avert it? Ideas on how it's not a bad thing after all?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think as mechanics are introduced that lend themselves well to higher numbers, the smaller companies will naturally decide to merge with other settlements to take advantage of it.
I think the small companies who've been paying attention are probably already thinking about joining existing settlements. It's the smart move unless they anticipate a lot of growth.
I think the companies that haven't been paying close attention still see company = get a settlement, when that's not really how it's going to work. I think they also don't yet realize that joining an existing settlement doesn't mean you have to give up your own company identity.

Goblin Squad Member

"I think they also don't yet realize that joining an existing settlement doesn't mean you have to give up your own company identity."

I don't think that they will until they see it in practice post release. Almost every single group has been advertising that as the case, but it is difficult to accept without evidence.

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Morbis wrote:

"I think they also don't yet realize that joining an existing settlement doesn't mean you have to give up your own company identity."

I don't think that they will until they see it in practice post release. Almost every single group has been advertising that as the case, but it is difficult to accept without evidence.

I'm not quite following - you're saying that you don't quite believe that smaller companies won't have to give up their identities? Or you're saying that smaller companies don't BELIEVE it when we tell them they don't have to give up their identities?

The former point I definitely would disagree with, as it appears to be advantageous to have multiple companies within one settlement. More advantageous than having them all in 1 company.
The latter point I'd agree with, though once they started doing a bit of research I'd think they'd start believing we're sincere when we say, join us and by all means, keep your company intact!

Sorry for the confusion regarding which point you are making

Goblinworks Executive Founder

You are talking about organisations like UNC. But said organisations will be chaotic, so they won't have the same access to training as lawful organisations, and they will probably have less crafters/gatherers, which means less ressources for the war machine.

It doesn't mean that they won't to be able to do anything, cause it would be balanced, I suppose, by a stronger PvP experience, but I think, and it's just a matter of opinion, that the game will be calibrated to give a greater chance to small non-PvP oriented organisations, against PvP-seasoned groups.

That's what I think, anyway. I can be mistaken, just like everybody who will post here obviously, even though some of us believe they can't be wrong.

Goblin Squad Member

<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:


I'm not quite following - you're saying that you don't quite believe that smaller companies won't have to give up their identities? Or you're saying that smaller companies don't BELIEVE it when we tell them they don't have to give up their identities?

The former point I definitely would disagree with, as it appears to be advantageous to have multiple companies within one settlement. More advantageous than having them all in 1 company.
The latter point I'd agree with, though once they started doing a bit of research I'd think they'd start believing we're sincere when we say, join us and by all means, keep your company intact!

Sorry for the confusion regarding which point you are making

I don't think that the majority of smaller groups really believe the larger groups when they say they will keep their identity. There isn't very much evidence contrary to that so far. I am hoping that changes in EE, when we can prove it to be true.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Differing opinions? Ideas on how to avert it? Ideas on how it's not a bad thing after all?

I disagree. I think the 30 initial settlements assigned in the land rush have a great potential for existing through OE and into the future.

1) Having an initial settlement already established will be a huge draw for recruiting new members, thus I expect settlements with 10-20 votes in the landrush to double or triple in size throughout EE, and then be able to have their pick of recruits from the opening of OE, especially if they prepare well for OE.

2) It will require the resources of a settlement to destroy another settlement. I can't imagine GW making the siege process so easy that a group (even a massive group like goonswarm) can make 1,000 accounts on day one of OE and be razing settlements in a month. I think the only entities with the ability to destroy a settlement will be other settlements. New groups that enter the game in OE will be either joining existing settlements, or founding new settlements as the map opens up.

3) The ability to control vast swathes of territory by one nation or settlement will be subjected to diminishing returns by the game mechanics. I think that a nation of 3-4 large settlements will have the power to destroy a smaller settlement, but it won't be cost effective to continually expand. I think DI limitations and other game mechanics will make it progressively harder to control territory, the more of it you have. This negative feedback is required, because no one, especially not Goblinworks, wants the map 1 year after OE to be one giant political entity.

So, I expect two or three large multi-settlement nations to emerge by the end of EE. The rest of the smaller settlements will survive by being on relatively good terms with several of the nations, such that they can call on aid if they are seriously attacked.

I think OE will shake things up a bit, especially if it is combined with an expansion of the map. 3 to 6 months after OE, I expect to see the number of nations increased to 4-5, and maybe one of the EE nations fall.

However, I think that over 50% of the groups that get settlements in the land rush will still have settlements 6 months after OE starts, and I think that most of the settlements that cease to exist will do so because of internal collapse, not external aggression.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think or perhaps it's a hope, that the entry level of settlement conquest will be lower than some might believe. Maybe not as low as in Darkfall, but certainly lower than requiring a force in the hundreds and battles that last a week.

Btw, we are "Morally Bankrupt".... "Morally Dubious" is for pussy cats.....

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Morbis wrote:
I don't think that the majority of smaller groups really believe the larger groups when they say they will keep their identity. There isn't very much evidence contrary to that so far. I am hoping that changes in EE, when we can prove it to be true.

For an example of this in action come visit Freevale. The Companies and Free Agents of this settlement all remain with their identities intact.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Audoucet wrote:
You are talking about organisations like UNC. But said organisations will be chaotic, so they won't have the same access to training as lawful organisations, and they will probably have less crafters/gatherers, which means less ressources for the war machine.

That's incorrect. Alignment doesn't have a bearing on training, Reputation does. People need to realize that being Chaotic isn't a bad thing. Randomly killing people is.

Quote:
Having a negative Reputation will mean that certain settlements will be off limits to you. Having a Reputation below -2500 means you cannot safely enter most NPC or starter settlements. Player settlements can set a minimum Reputation to enter safely; if your Reputation is below this value the guards will attack you and none of the NPCs will talk to you. Higher end structures, like tier 2 and 3 training and crafting facilities, require the settlement have its minimum Reputation set to certain levels to function. So if you want your town to have awesome training and crafting facilities, you have to set a high minimum Reputation to enter the settlement. This means characters that do a lot of PvP outside of wars, feuds, and such will be forced to visit less developed settlements that are wretched hives of scum and villainy.

Taken from the Alignment and Reputation Blog.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mostly agree with Gaskon:

IF you win in the Landrush, and are part of the 33 settlements, you are looking at a LONG time with your proto-settlement, as well as participate in the expanding and building of that settlement.

Since we will already be established, with banks, buildings, and a Hall, I think that a lot of people will just join these settlements, instead of having to clear a hex, forage for resources, and wait days to build anything similar to the starting settlements.

We have 10 more weeks, were not even through week 1 and we have 806 voters in the Landrush. Who knows how many people will have voted by week 10? Personally, I feel we will double that number by the end of the 10 week period.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think one of the big problems is the way LR2 has been advertised and how its currently depicted on Goblinworks. All this discussion of "Guilds" vs. "Companies" vs. "Settlements" is confounding the issue.

During Kickstarter 2, people bought 6 person "Guild" accounts. The May 2, 2014 GW blog still states "..During the 2nd Kickstarter we had a promotion for Guilds to compete for spots on the map..." Heck, its even called a "Guild" Land Rush, and there is a "Guild" leaderboard. People are being asked to form "Guilds" on GW to compete for a spot on the map.

But on the other side of the coin, people are being told to cast their votes for other "Guilds" or combine with other "Guilds" if their Guild is too small. People are talking on these threads about dissolving their guilds to join with others to vote in the Land Rush to have a shot at a spot on the map.

Eeesh. No wonder. What is a small Guild to do?

I think it would help to call LR2 a "Settlement" Land Rush; divorce the "Guild" association for the spot on the map from the LR. Continue to have people form and register their GW "Guilds", no matter how small, so they show up on the "Guild" Index on Goblinworks.

Change the name of the Leaderboard to "Settlement" Leaderboard. Have the Settlements named something other than the Guild names (some Settlement have already done this and I think GW encouraged it).

Then, have each Guild Leader cast their Guilds votes (all of them) for a single settlement. Basically, throw all that Guilds support for one Settlement. Under each Settlement on the new leaderboard, list the Guilds that are currently supporting that Settlement, with links to that Guilds recruitment page and a little alignment tag next to it.

That way, it is absolutely clear that Settlements are getting spots on the map, and Settlements are supported by specific Guilds that (eventually) may operate from that Settlement.

This may not solve the problem about small guilds fearing they will lose their identity, but I think it would clear a lot of things up for folks, and at least show that Guilds, no matter how small, will likely be a part of a Settlement.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

You're right Ravelute. But still, my point stand, I think.

Goblin Squad Member

@KC , unless it was changed there will be a game mechanic that makes small undeveloped settlements very hard to take. The more you grow the more vulnerable you become. This is part of settlement siege warfare , the kinds of underhanded coercion that might go on to take over before that, who can guess.

I'm pretty sure that GW plans on expanding the map fast enough (after OE) so that new people or displaced people can find a spot for a new settlement.

CEO, Goblinworks

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@TEO Lone_Wolf:

We extensively debated doing exactly that. This is why we chose not to do it.

How many people who are not active on these forums are a member of a Settlement right now?

Answer: Zero

"Settlement" is an undefined term for virtually everyone outside these forums. So if we told people they should participate in a "Settlement Land Rush", that would not connect with them, because they are not in Settlements.

Number of people who are in "Guilds" right now?

Probably at least a million. Could be several million.

So that's a million people who will hear/see something about a "Guild" Land Rush and have at least a chance of thinking "that sounds like something interesting to me and my interests".

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you Ryan, your response is much appreciated!

And I hope I did not offend.....slinks off with tail between legs

Goblin Squad Member

Lone_Wolf I will see if I can find some spare Magistry scented soaps for you to make you feel better

Goblin Squad Member

Toombstone, you are a kind soul! I look forward to visiting Magistry's Settlement in EE (and picking up my scented soaps :)!

CEO, Goblinworks

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nothing to feel bad about. I was the guy who lost the argument. :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really think that swapping it to Settlement would still make more sense. Even if guilds are a term used elsewhere, it doesn't mean the phrasing needs to be cloned. If you clone all the phrasing, you'll get a game that sounds like any other. A Settlement Land Rush would get me interested in a game, because that is something new and different, and tells me that *settlements* are the selling point of the game, not guilds. Guilds do raids. Settlements implies so much more.

Goblin Squad Member

With regard to Ryan's post, I guess a good point to remember in how/why GW does the things they does is that for most of us, no matter how invested we are, it's a game, for them, it's a game that they hope will be putting food on their families' tables for a long time. They need to make a gameproduct that a critical mass of people will enjoy enough to want to start playingpurchasing soon, and keep playingpurchasing.

And at the end of the day, that's what we all want, since anything else will end in nothing.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Alexander Damocles wrote:
...would get me interested in a game...

Unfortunately, as one of my former companies used to drill into us: "You are not the customer". In our case, it was that we knew the ins-and-outs of the credit-card world and its products; in yours, you're already a fan of PFO.

In both cases, we have to work quite hard to find a way to view things we know well objectively, as if we were still outsiders.

EDIT: ...or I could've waited to see what Caldeathe posted whilst I typed :-).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In general i hope seizing an enemy settlement will cost so much (both in coin and DI) that you only will try to do it if there is big rivalry in the picture. This would leave smaller settlements who just wanna do their own thing a greater chance of surviving if they play their cards right.

Goblin Squad Member

I've been wondering how many players will it require to even maintain a settlement?

Take PvP out of the equation. Won't there be some ongoing maintenance required? So much wood/stone per month or something?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Right, but at *this* stage, the game is about those willing to pay for a game right out of the Alpha stage. In a general sense, sure, use the term guild. But for now, this is focusing on the early adapters, those who look into a game beyond skin deep. Because if a gamer is turned off by the focus on settlements instead of guilds, then they'll have even more problems with only 4 basic roles and not a huge amount of complete game systems.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
I think or perhaps it's a hope, that the entry level of settlement conquest will be lower than some might believe. Maybe not as low as in Darkfall, but certainly lower than requiring a force in the hundreds and battles that last a week.

The reason I hope the opposite is that creating and building a settlement will take hundreds or thousands of player-hours of effort and investment.

It should take at least 10% of that effort to destroy one, thus a settlement that took 100 players 100 days to build, should take a siege by 100 players at least 10 days to destroy it.

If taking and destroying are within an order of magnitude as easy as creating and building, then the in-game civilization will collapse.

In addition, there is very little a settlement can do to permanently harm a non-settlement player. Enabling a group without a settlement of their own to have a realistic chance at destroying a settlement would greatly change the risk vs reward dynamics that make an enjoyable game. It would be like playing poker at a table with one player not being required to ante.
(I would make an exception for an large, organized, possibly clandestinely supported by a settlement group being able to destroy a poorly run, weak settlement.)

Finding the right balance to have some stability and confidence in the security of settlements vs not completely shutting out newcomers is going to be a great challenge for the long-term success of PFO.


Ravenlute wrote:
The Companies and Free Agents of this settlement all remain with their identities intact.

Speaking as a Free Agent planning to create a Company, I agree. Freehaven might be a special case, of course.

Ravenlute wrote:
That's incorrect. Alignment doesn't have a bearing on training, Reputation does. People need to realize that being Chaotic isn't a bad thing. Randomly killing people is.

Depending on your definition of "bad". ;)

@Gaskon: A very well-reasoned argument. Here's my take on it.

Gaskon wrote:

Initial for existing through OE and into the future.

1) Having an initial settlement already established will be a huge draw for recruiting new members, thus I expect settlements with 10-20 votes in the landrush to double or triple in size throughout EE, and then be able to have their pick of recruits from the opening of OE, especially if they prepare well for OE.

True, but don't you think the new folk are more likely to go to the bigger groups?

Then again, they might go to smaller groups first, liking the increase in autonomy it brings.

Gaskon wrote:
2) It will require the resources of a settlement to destroy another settlement.

I kind of hope this isn't true, just because I'd like to be able to attack Settlements as a semi-roving horde without needing my patron's permission. Then again, it is an effective anti-griefing mechanic.

However: Aragon, the home of the self-declared morally bankrupt UNC, is a settlement. What's to stop UNC from going to clean the clocks of a few dozen baby towns?

No One Posts Like Gaskon, Busts the...Ghosts Like Gaskon...

TEO Cheatle wrote:
Since we will already be established, with banks, buildings, and a Hall, I think that a lot of people will just join these settlements, instead of having to clear a hex, forage for resources, and wait days to build anything similar to the starting settlements.

I believe this will be the case for "freelance" additions, but how about organizations like Pax that branch out across the gamosphere? Communities spread, and they like to spread as one force. We often bring up Goons, for instance.

That being said, I see the loss of some settlements as a very good thing. I want people like Goons to show up and change things up. I don't want the same old settlements just trading roles now and again. So this thread isn't purely worryworryworry.

Notmyrealname wrote:
@KC , unless it was changed there will be a game mechanic that makes small undeveloped settlements very hard to take. The more you grow the more vulnerable you become.

That was the attack window, right? It's been a while since I read through the blog.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:


However: Aragon, the home of the self-declared morally bankrupt UNC, is a settlement. What's to stop UNC from going to clean the clocks of a few dozen baby towns?

I think Aragon is a great example of the settlement mechanics working correctly, and a very hopeful sign for the future.

The UNC has obviously realized they can't exist without the support of a settlement, so they have decided to create their own.

What stops them from beating up on little smaller settlements is that if they do it too much, Pax and TEO are going to go burn down Aragon before they get big enough to threaten Callambea or Brighthaven.

Now, if the UNC was able to destroy a small settlement without the support structures contained in Aragon, then there would be a problem, because there would be nothing the big stable nations could threaten them with to get them to stop it.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

For me, taking down settlements defences should take at least 24 hours, in the best case.

But I think that one of the most important thing, is a very slow movement for siege weapons. And they should be very vulnerable, while moving.

@KC : I absolutely don't agree about the benefits of people like Goon. I'm happy to see organisations like UNC & friends, but Goon... If I was GW, I would pre-emptively ban these guys.


Obviously, Goons were only invoked because we often bring them up as an organization from out-of-PFO. I could have just as easily referred to the Wikipedians, but I don't think that community games much.

My point is, it is important that groups get formed that aren't from Paizo, both for financial purposes and community-based ones. It's no fun if all the groups are owned by the same old group of people.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
...the Wikipedians, but I don't think that community games much.

From interviews I've read, I think Wikipedia might be all the game they *want*.

Goblin Squad Member

Gaskon wrote:
Enabling a group without a settlement of their own to have a realistic chance at destroying a settlement would greatly change the risk vs reward dynamics that make an enjoyable game.

I realize this isn't exactly what you're talking about, but I think it will always be possible for a group without a Settlement to take out someone else's Settlement - it's kind of required.

I'm pretty sure this post from Ryan is his response to the question "what happens when a group loses their Settlement?":

I think it is highly highly unlikely that a cohesive group that has done even minimal planning in the face of overwhelming aggression will be knocked out of the Kingdom game. They're likely to have to move to the frontier for sure, but they'll storm into the frontier as a powerful force that will probably target the weakest available Settlement out there and whack it. And if they can't, well, they probably don't deserve to remain a Settlement and they'll have a failure cascade.

Goblin Squad Member

If there was just a way for the small guilds to reach out to each other to form larger groups on the Goblin Works site, I think that would resolve some of the issue. Also, I think it's important for people to think about what type of city they want to make and then seek out those with similar strategy. That way you keep your individuality as a company, as you work with other communities towards a common goal. That's at least what we've been trying to do.

Goblin Squad Member

The "way" is a thread that the big 5 will endorse and will walk throughout the small companies ti loom teams of similar interests. Still many will not be big enough to pay for their communities.

Goblin Squad Member

FMS Quietus wrote:
If there was just a way for the small guilds to reach out to each other to form larger groups on the Goblin Works site, I think that would resolve some of the issue. Also, I think it's important for people to think about what type of city they want to make and then seek out those with similar strategy. That way you keep your individuality as a company, as you work with other communities towards a common goal. That's at least what we've been trying to do.

This! There are at least four groups that we could join with to vault into the top 30, or higher, but not one of them has a contact listed.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
FMS Quietus wrote:
If there was just a way for the small guilds to reach out to each other to form larger groups on the Goblin Works site, I think that would resolve some of the issue. Also, I think it's important for people to think about what type of city they want to make and then seek out those with similar strategy. That way you keep your individuality as a company, as you work with other communities towards a common goal. That's at least what we've been trying to do.
This! There are at least four groups that we could join with to vault into the top 30, or higher, but not one of them has a contact listed.

I'm a part of Ozem's Vigil. If you and your group are interested, feel free to reach out to us. We are still looking for companies and free agents to help forge our vision of a Lawful Good settlement together.

Goblin Squad Member

Brighthaven also seeks companies to help it grow. TEO will be a part of Brighthaven, but we won't be the only part. Just another option :)

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Nothing to feel bad about. I was the guy who lost the argument. :)

That is unfortunate then. Players may be unfamiliar with the concept of Settlements but they would certainly be familiar with the concept of Companies; a group of players with a similar interest in-game for doing stuff together. I think it would have been rather easy to explain that the Settlement is a higher form of organization where their Guilds would have fit into as a single Company, or split up as several Companies if it is a big Guild with divided interests.

It's not that subtle, I could see players easily embrace that new concept.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Btw, we are "Morally Bankrupt".... "Morally Dubious" is for pussy cats.....

Glad to see you owning it Bludd :)

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Btw, we are "Morally Bankrupt".... "Morally Dubious" is for pussy cats.....
Glad to see you owning it Bludd :)

We "Have What We Hold". It's always about the River Freedoms.

Goblin Squad Member

On the topic of the OP....

What would help with the land rush interface would be listing the founding member's name. This way that person could be PM'd directly. Not every group in the land rush has an attached website, and a few of them that do are not even active on them.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
What would help with the land rush interface would be listing the founding member's name. This way that person could be PM'd directly. Not every group in the land rush has an attached website, and a few of them that do are not even active on them.

Unfortunately, some of the Goblinworks account names are different than the Paizo account names... so you can still wind up with no means of communication. However, it would certainly help.

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
...the Wikipedians, but I don't think that community games much.
From interviews I've read, I think Wikipedia might be all the game they *want*.

Hmmm... I wonder if there is a correlation between people who stopped actively participating in Wikipedia when it became a game and people who play MMOs. Or maybe it's just me.

You think the Goons invading would be bad... if we got Wikipedians in here every dev post would be subject to [fact] checking and half the game would be crowdsource-deleted due to lack of notable precedents.

Goblin Squad Member

CBDunkerson wrote:
You think the Goons invading would be bad... if we got Wikipedians in here every dev post would be subject to [fact] checking and half the game would be crowdsource-deleted due to lack of notable precedents.

Yep, been through the wikipedia fascist fun with a game I used to play.

Threshold wikipedia drama

I guess when you can get Richard Bartle and Raph Koster come to bat for your game, it does show how ludicrous things have gotten.

Goblin Squad Member

Here are something that I want to see and I don't want to see....

Darkfall:

There was a hell of a lot of time and effort, thousands of man hours, and months of game time into building the Cities, much less time in building the Hamlets. Which I see as Settlements and PoIs here.

It was very easy to take a Darkfall Settlement if you had a concentrated effort. I DO NOT want to see this happen here. I don't want to see self-sieging, exploitation, ease of declaring a siege, or extremely easy to take a settlement. Sieges lasted hours in Darkfall, not days.

Now, for me, Outposts and Bulk Goods have already fixed a lot from the Darkfall city building process. The DI cost to declare war is also a really good balance, and the cost being higher on smaller settlements is also really good.

I want to see it being really hard to take a settlement and I want to see DI and Settlement membership (whether they are offline or online) to play a role in the sieging and taking process. So, while it is most costly to maintain a siege with the smaller settlements they are easier to take than the more advanced settlements. While it is cheaper to siege a settlement similar to yours, it would be much cheaper to siege a larger one.

I also want to see the ability to have MULTIPLE settlements siege One Settlement. It is going to happen anyways, might as well make it cost something.

Sieges shouldn't be something that happen overnight.....

Small Settlement with 300-500 DI and 50 people takes 2-3 days
Large Settlement with 2500-3000 DI and 500 people takes 1-2 weeks

Anything that require longer time investment than a day will really make people think and plan. If it costs 10 DI per 100 DI of a Settlement to Declare, +/- based on how big the Settlement is compared to you, is going to really make a group think about attacking. Then they have to factor in food/stone/ore/trade/wood as well as upkeep into those DI costs. Not to mention gear for those that die, as well as Siege equipment that may need to be replaced/repaired.

It will be in-depth (a community like us enjoy depth) without leading to a lot of constant annoying war decs/sieges. It means if someone attempts a siege it is extremely meaningful, as they have put forth a great deal of resources and effort just to declare.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FMS Quietus wrote:
I'm a part of Ozem's Vigil. If you and your group are interested, feel free to reach out to us. We are still looking for companies and free agents to help forge our vision of a Lawful Good settlement together.

I appreciate the offer, but for now I'd like to stay down in the smaller groups where we can have a real effect on who is involved, rather than just who gets their first choice. Our group may very well hope to be part of your community when it is established, but for now, we'll stick to the middle groups in hopes of influencing the lay of the land on opening day.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Cheatle wrote:
...self-sieging...

I've not run into this before. In PFO terms, would this be "your friend declares war on you in order to set up a siege that keeps your real enemy from being able to besiege you"?

If so, that's a nasty hole that's gotta be plugged.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
FMS Quietus wrote:
I'm a part of Ozem's Vigil. If you and your group are interested, feel free to reach out to us. We are still looking for companies and free agents to help forge our vision of a Lawful Good settlement together.
I appreciate the offer, but for now I'd like to stay down in the smaller groups where we can have a real effect on who is involved, rather than just who gets their first choice. Our group may very well hope to be part of your community when it is established, but for now, we'll stick to the middle groups in hopes of influencing the lay of the land on opening day.

Well I appreciate where you are coming from. We've been doing the same thing. We started as a Company of 9 (really 6 due to having 3 votes from OE in the first land rush.) We were able to convince some friends to upgrade their accounts or buy in. Even with that we knew we wouldn't have a enough to run a settlement, much less secure a vote.

We have since started reaching out to other companies (like you are doing now) and formed an alliance with Peace Through Vigilance. We are still looking to grow that community of other companies as partners. We also have a couple of free agents that are joining our settlement just to have a place to hang their hat in a Lawful Good settlement and they are most welcome as well.

I sincerely hope that you are successful in your endeavors. Please keep in touch, no matter where you end up.

Goblin Squad Member

I think there would be some danger in a system of requiring a settlement in order to have the support and capabilities to siege and capture a settlement.

This would effectively block any large group without a settlement from getting one. There are ways to capture settlements without formation combat and or siege engines.


Bluddwolf and Nihimon make a good point. It's unlikely a settlement will actually be required to take another settlement down.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

I think there would be some danger in a system of requiring a settlement in order to have the support and capabilities to siege and capture a settlement.

This would effectively block any large group without a settlement from getting one. There are ways to capture settlements without formation combat and or siege engines.

Not at all. It would merely require that they found one in one of the open settlement hexes (there are nearly 40 more on the initial map)

1 to 50 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / The Fate Of Small Settlements All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.